The "learning health system" (LHS) concept has been defined in broad terms, which makes it challenging for health system leaders to determine exactly what is required to transform their organization into an LHS. This study provides a conceptual map of the LHS landscape by identifying the activities, principles, tools, and conditions that LHS researchers have associated with the concept. Through a multi-step screening process, two researchers identified 79 publications from PubMed (published before January 2020) that contained information relevant to the question, "What work is required of a healthcare organization that is operating as an LHS?" Those publications were coded as to whether or not they referenced each of 94 LHS elements in the taxonomy developed by the study team. This taxonomy, named the Learning Health Systems Consolidated Framework (LHS-CF), organizes the elements into five "bodies of work" (organizational learning, translation of evidence into practice, building knowledge, analyzing clinical data, and engaging stakeholders) and four "enabling conditions" (workforce skilled for LHS work, data systems and informatics technology in place, organization invests resources in LHS work, and supportive organizational culture). We report the frequency that each of the 94 elements was referenced across the 79 publications. The four most referenced elements were: "organization builds knowledge or evidence," "quality improvement practices are standard practice," "patients and family members are actively engaged," and "organizational culture emphasizes and supports learning." By dissecting the LHS construct into its component elements, the LHS-CF taxonomy can serve as a useful tool for LHS researchers and practitioners in defining the aspects of LHS they are addressing. By assessing how often each element is referenced in the literature, the study provides guidance to health system leaders as to how their organization needs to evolve in order to become an LHS -while also recognizing that each organization should emphasize elements that are most aligned with their mission and goals.

Objectives Although youth cigarette smoking has declined in the United States, use of alternative tobacco products, such as hookah, has increased. This study aims to assess changes in prevalence from 2011 to 2013 and examine factors associated with current hookah use among North Carolina high school students in 2013. Methods Data came from the NC Youth Tobacco Survey (NCYTS) in 2011 (n=4,791) and 2013 (n=4,092). STATA logistic regression survey procedures account for the complex survey design and sampling weights. Results Prevalence of reported current hookah use significantly increased from 3.6% (95% CI: 2.8–4.5) in 2011 to 6.1% (95% CI: 4.9–7.5) in 2013 while reported lifetime hookah use increased from 9.8% (95% CI: 8.0–12.0) in 2011 to 12.6% (95% CI: 11.0–14.4) in 2013. Correlates of current hookah use included having a weekly disposable income over $50 (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.05, 95% CI:1.25–3.35), currently smoking cigarettes (AOR=4.57, 95% CI:1.80–11.62), and living with hookah users (AOR=6.45, 95% CI:3.21–12.93). Self-reported positively commenting about or “Liking” tobacco in social media (AOR=1.83, 95% CI:1.84–4.52) and frequent exposure to online tobacco advertisements (AOR=1.61, 95% CI:1.13–2.28) were also associated with current hookah use. Conclusions Comprehensive product-specific communication and policy interventions are needed to educate youth about the dangers of hookah use and reduce social acceptability among youth. To decrease hookah use in NC, policymakers should consider restoring funding for comprehensive tobacco prevention and control programs and equalizing tobacco tax rates for all tobacco product types.

Introduction: To enhance the performance evaluation of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, we examined the utility of advanced bibliometric measures that go beyond simple publication counts to demonstrate the impact of translational research output. Methods: The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2017. We adopted advanced bibliometric measures and a state-of-the-art bibliometric network analysis tool to assess research productivity, citation impact, the scope of research collaboration, and the clusters of research topics. Results: Totally, 754 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 24,000 citation counts by April 2017 with an average of 33 cites per article. NC TraCS-supported research papers received more than twice as many cites per year as the average National Institute of Health-funded research publications from the same field and time. We identified the top productive researchers and their networks within the CTSA hub. Findings demonstrated the impact of NC TraCS in facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations within the CTSA hub and across the CTSA consortium and connecting researchers with right peers and organizations. Conclusion: Both improved bibliometrics measures and bibliometric network analysis can bring new perspectives to CTSA evaluation via citation influence and the scope of research collaborations.

IntroductionAlthough adolescent cigarette use continues to decline in the United States, electronic cigarette (e‑cigarette) use among adolescents has escalated rapidly. This study assessed trends and patterns of e‑cigarette use and concurrent cigarette smoking and the relationships between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation intentions and behaviors among high school students in North Carolina.MethodsData came from high school students who completed the school-based, cross-sectional North Carolina Youth Tobacco Survey in 2011 (n = 4,791) and 2013 (n = 4,092). This study assessed changes in prevalence of e-cigarette and cigarette use from 2011 through 2013, and cessation-related factors associated with those students’ current and past use of e‑cigarettes in 2013.ResultsThe prevalence of current e-cigarette use (use in the past 30 days) significantly increased from 1.7% (95% CI, 1.3%–2.2%) in 2011 to 7.7% (95% CI, 5.9%–10.0%) in 2013. Among dual users, current e-cigarette use was negatively associated with intention to quit cigarette smoking for good (relative risk ratio [RRR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29–0.87) and with attempts to quit cigarette smoking in the past 12 months (RRR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49–0.97). Current e-cigarette smokers were less likely than those who only smoked cigarettes to have ever abstained from cigarette smoking for 6 months (RRR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21–0.82) or 1 year (RRR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09–0.51) and to have used any kind of aids for smoking cessation (RRR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29–0.74).ConclusionPublic health practitioners and cessation clinic service providers should educate adolescents about the risks of using any nicotine-containing products, including e-cigarettes, and provide adequate tobacco cessation resources and counseling to adolescent tobacco users.

Although cigarette use by adolescents is declining, emerging tobacco products are becoming increasingly popular and youth may use more than one type of tobacco product. The purposes of this study were: (1) to assess patterns of poly-tobacco use among a representative sample of high school students and (2) to determine how beliefs correlate with poly-tobacco use. Data came from the 2013 North Carolina Youth Tobacco Survey (n = 4092). SAS logistic regression survey procedures were used to account for the complex survey design and sampling weights. Among all high school students in NC in 2013, 29.7% reported current any tobacco use, with 19.1% reporting current poly-tobacco use, and 10.6% reporting current use of only one product. Among poly-tobacco users, 59.3% reported that one of the products they currently used was cigarettes. Positive tobacco product beliefs were found to be significantly associated with poly-tobacco use. Communication campaigns, policy efforts, and future research are needed for prevention, regulation, and control of poly-tobacco use among adolescents, which represents a significant public health problem.

The purpose of the article is to describe the progress of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program to address the evaluation-related recommendations made by the 2013 Institute of Medicine’s review of the CTSA Program and guidelines published in CTS Journal the same year (Trochim et al., Clinical and Translational Science 2013; 6(4): 303–309). We utilize data from a 2018 national survey of evaluators administered to all 64 CTSA hubs and a content analysis of the role of evaluation in the CTSA Program Funding Opportunity Announcements to document progress. We present four new opportunities for further strengthening CTSA evaluation efforts: (1) continue to build the collaborative evaluation infrastructure at local and national levels; (2) make better use of existing data; (3) strengthen and augment the common metrics initiative; and (4) pursue internal and external opportunities to evaluate the CTSA program at the national level. This article will be of significant interest to the funders of the CTSA Program and the multiple stakeholders in the larger consortium and will promote dialog from the broad range of CTSA stakeholders about further strengthening the CTSA Program’s evaluation.

No abstract

Background Evaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal. Objective This study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators. Methods The sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results. Results A total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001). Conclusions Multi-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.